In this book, "Masters of Deception: Zionism, 9/11 and the War on Terror Hoax," writer Zander C. Fuerza documents a Zionist conspiracy behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. Collecting the most potent pieces of evidence available, the author forms a cohesive narrative demonstrating that the Israeli Mossad, with the assistance of Zionist assets in the American government, conspired to execute the 9/11 attacks as a false-flag event designed to initiate the devilish neocon dream of a "Clash of Civilizations" between the Western world and the Islamic world, for the benefit of Israel and Zionism.
Author's blog: http://therealzcf.wordpress.com
Official book page: http://mastersofdeception.wordpress.com/
The author of this book can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
August 19, 2013
This is to thank you in your dedication to this most important issue.
Just a few additions:
1) On Rupert Murdoch, see the following: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Murdoch2.html
2) You state on p. 47 - "To draw attention away from the fact that two Israeli agents tried to bomb the George Washington Bridge, and to further bury the explosive story of the five celebrating Israeli Mossad operatives who were arrested in New Jersey, the Jewish - owned news media — in a premeditated incitement to genocide — repeatedly aired a dubious video clip of Palestinians supposedly celebrating the 9/11 attacks in the West Bank. (See:“Muslims “Palestinians” Celebrating 9/11 (CNN–Fox),” YouTube) The video, which was later exposed as a fraud, served the agenda of the Zionist masterminds behind 9/11 expertly, as it portrayed the Palestinians as supporters of terrorism" - For verification, note that Mark Crispin Miller, in a Mar. 8, 2013 email to me, stated - "
What happened, and what I would have told Agence France-Presse, is that that footage had—ironically enough—been shot by a couple of Palestinian stringers, who got those kids to cheer (by offering them candy) so as to make for a sensational image for whichever US network hired them.
FWIW, I remember also seeing, at the time, a report on the CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corp.), on the reaction to 9/11 in some other refugee camp, where all was quiet, and where one man told the correspondent that they took no pleasure in that atrocity, as they had so many miseries of their own to think about.
[... - irrelevant part redacted]
I hope this is helpful to you."
Also, for those who haven't seen the footage, the following is a helpful guide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p1efINNrLU
The German News service Der Spiegel put forward information noting that the Palestinian woman who cheered in front of the camera was bribed and that she was mortified at the context it was put in by the western media: http://liveweb.archive.org/http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&u=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,158625,00.html&usg=ALkJrhiPYg44a6hEAvjfPzpvv8szVQxryQ
The people in the background were passing by as if nothing had happened. The only people dancing were by the camera crew.
3) On the WTC, there is more explosive material coming to light. Here we find a DEA report on Israeli "art students" with detailed maps of the infrastructure, and construction passes: http://antiwar.com/rep/DEA_Report_redactedxx.pdf
There is only one minor point of correction that I have to make to your work, ZCF. Woodrow Wilson is commonly cited as having "regretted" his actions, and while you did correctly cite him, the "most unhappy man" item, which you did not cite but seem to have been misled by (as so many others have been), is a strawman that is used to discredit criticism. While he did admit the existence of such a power elite in his time, he never regretted his actions in further consolidating the power of that elite.
So Wilson was a tool of the establishment with no regrets. I think a source of confusion in this is that in Senate Document No. 23, probably as a typo, Robert Owen (who had previously been a co-sponsor of the Federal Reserve bill, but here gave quite a different position, reflecting a change of heart) mistakenly cites the Wilson quote as having come from 1916 (or perhaps he did say it in 1916, it comes also from speeches prior to "The New Freedom") - still, in many other ways this is a very interesting source: http://archive.org/stream/NationalEconomyAndTheBankingSystemOfTheUnitedStates/NationalEconomyAndTheBankingSystem#page/n105/mode/2up
There are far superior sources for this argument though. In "U.S. money vs. corporation currency, "Aldrich plan."", we have proof, from facsimiles of letters to the banks involved, that the Aldrich plan was an extension of corporate/monetary power consolidation: http://archive.org/stream/usmoneyvscorpor00crozgoog#page/n9/mode/2up
In "Secrets of the Federal Reserve", we find that the Federal Reserve act is essentially an upgraded version of the Aldrich plan: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
A primer on money / Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, 88th Congress, 2d session. p. 75 states: "The practical effect of requiring all purchases to be made through the open market is to take money from the taxpayer and give it to these dealers. It forces the Government to pay a toll for borrowing money.": http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b654324;q1=A%20primer%20on%20money;seq=87;view=1up;num=75
According to 31 USCA §714, the functions of the FOMC are exempt from audits: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/714
There's also an interesting congressional study, in light of this, called "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence", which notes the influence of the banking elite over the Federal Reserve system: https://babel.hathitrust.org/shcgi/pt?id=pur1.32754067562052;q1=Federal%20Reserve%20Directors%3A%20A%20Study%20of%20Corporate%20and%20Banking%20Influence;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=3;num=i
The following study, "Interlocking Directorates Among Major U.S. Corporations", shows that these banks interlock with the major corporations in such a way that in very many ways we are dealing with a trust: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077914680;q1=Interlocking%20Directorates%20among%20the%20Major%20U.S.%20Corporations;seq=3;view=1up
The interrogation of Federal Reserve Chairman Marriner Eccles in the HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 2233: http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/historicaldocs/678/download/68568/1947hr_directpurchgov.pdf p. 31: "Mr. PATMAN. NOW, in order to get our definitions straight a little
further, our economy is based upon debt; our bank system and our
money are based on debt; that is right, is it not?
Mr. ECCLES. Money is created by bank credit.
Mr. PATMAN. Yes.
Mr. ECCLES. That is right. And the bank reserves are created by
the central bank.
Mr. PATMAN. With some exceptions, if all the people were to pay
their debts to the banks and the United States Government should
pay its debts, there would not be any money to do business with,
would there, except just a little, like Civil War money, and coins, and
things like that, probably about four or five billion dollars; is that
Mr. ECCLES. That is right. That is what happened after 1929.
With debt contraction- we have never had a period of prosperity
when there has not been an expansion of debt on balance, by either
the Government or by the private individuals or corporations, or by
both. Whenever debt has contracted on balance, you have had a
depression. From 1929 to 1933 I think there was a total debt con
traction, as I recall, of something like $30,000,000,000. This was bank
debt and also private debt.
Mr. PATMAN. Well, is the reason not obvious, that since our money
is based upon debt, and our bank system also, and money is created
through the bank system by debt, that we can only be prosperous if
we go into debt, and if we pay our debts, why, we are in a depression;
is that not right?
Mr. ECCLES. YOU have got to distinguish between bank debt and
debt outside of the bank. The expansion of debt to the banks creates
deposits and deposits, of course, are always available to be withdrawn
as currency. In other words, the growth of debts to banks, whether
in the form of public debt, such as the ownership of Government
bonds, municipal debt, or private debt, creates deposits. That is
where the great growth of bank deposits has come from, largely
through the growth of debt, and largely Government debt. And
that, of course, is responsible for our very large, what we term, money
supply." See also the following exchange given in the Hearings on the Retirement of Federal Reserve bank stock, Volumes 1-2, p. 41., : PATMAN: "Now Mr. Allen, when the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee buys a million dollar bond you create the money on the credit of the Nation to pay for that bond, don't you?
ALLEN: That is correct.
PATMAN: And the credit of the Nation is represented by Federal Reserve Notes in that case, isn't it? If the banks want the actual money, you give Federal Reserve notes in payment, don't you?
ALLEN: That could be done, but nobody wants the Federal Reserve notes.
PATMAN: Nobody wants them, because the banks would rather have the credit as reserves."
All of this becomes particularly interesting when you consider the tax situation as revealed by the Grace Commission: http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9044/m1/1/high_res_d/IP0281G.pdf p. 12 (of the document, not the pdf): "Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
*Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
*With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."
Of course, it is important to keep in mind what the fundamental source of this debt is, and how it keeps on expanding, beyond the actual amount of money in circulation, due to the interest attached to it.
Some of the most eminent economists in the United States have condemned this debt slavery system, and outlined it's origins. Irving Fisher was hailed by Milton Friedman as "the greatest economist the United States has ever produced.": http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lDF_uNIWQ_oC&lpg=PT52&dq=%22the%20greatest%20economist%20the%20United%20States%20has%20ever%20produced.%22&pg=PT52#v=onepage&q=%22the%20greatest%20economist%20the%20United%20States%20has%20ever%20produced.%22&f=false
Robert Hemphill was the first credit manager of the Atlanta Federal Reserve, who wished to end fractional reserve lending, believing instead that banks should keep 100% reserves, and collaborated with Fisher on this. He drafted a bill that Fisher supported called S.3744: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=izO25SyQU9QC&lpg=PA107&ots=hf4D5v-_B-&dq=%22fisher%22%20%22robert%20h.%20hemphill%22&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q=%22robert%20hemphill%2C%20who%20drafted%20the%20bill%22&f=false
He noted, in the forward to Fisher's text 100% Money, the following: "If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system. When one gets a complete grasp upon this picture, the tragic absurdity of our helpless position is almost incredible, but there it is.": http://tinyurl.com/ay9luxx
Commenting on all this, Hemphill stated, before the House of Representatives: "... there has been for 200 years, since one certain man came into power as a financial genius, Mayer Anselm Rothschild, who was born in 1790 [sic] since he came into power there has been a constant, organized, shrewd conspiracy to convince the people of the world that this is not true, to convince men against their own judgment, against a thing which is self-evident. And that conspiracy has involved the press, it has involved the pulpit, it has involved a conspiracy to mislead people about the importance of a very simple thing - money. The interests who promote this confusion profit by retaining for themselves the monopoly of manufacturing our money.": http://tinyurl.com/cccq3e8
See facsimiles of all of this here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/02/amazing-1934-quote-on-rothschilds.html
For more, see the following: http://archive.org/details/SummaryOfRothschildPower
- Ben Steigmann